New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-20
WHAT READERS WRITE ABOUT
LAyMANs VIEW OF THE NGLYNN CASE

ITO me Edttor Of The Trtbums.
sIR Proudhon summarized his denial Of private rgnts
in property in the fOrcble and now somewhat famous
phrase ia Propriete cest e VOL" and his disciples
are among Socialists and Anarchists. DE- Mcolynn'
following ProudhOn at distance says that private
property in land is robbery. and probably DR.. NC
Glynns following IN this doctrine, Is chiefly among
the same classes. But Archbishop Corrigan responds
to Dr. McGlynn and declares that private property
| in land Is not robbery.
| Here is q square ISSUE As I read history, all
! lawcivers from Moses down are with Archbishop
Corrisan in defence Of private property In land as
well as in houses and goods. The DecaioGue III
forces this right by declaring Thou smart NOV eo'ee
thy neighbor's goods nor his HELD" All o'hno"
society has always commended the man whose fru-
cal diligence enabled him to live on his own acre
and under his own vine and 6gree' and II seems 10
me that it may be said that men and nations nave
been civilized In proportion as they recognized ano
| prot ected the rights Of every man In his own lanu
| and goods.
But did not propose here to discuss the question
| whether private property in land Is or Is Loe rop'
berry, but simply to make clear TINS issue oe'~ceh
DR. McGlynn and Archbishop Corrgan. Dr. NC
| GIynn publicly maintains that private ownership OK
land is morally wrong, and his ecclesiastical superior
the Archbishop interferes and declares that priNaee
ownership Of land Is not morally wrong, and that
Dr. McGlynn must not teach that IL Is wrong. FOR
It Is material here to remember that DIR. McClynn
had voluntarily assumed and by his superiors hat
been charged with the Office Of teacher In an organlSa
ton on. Of whose fundamental principles Is that Us
teachers shall only teach in subordInation to their
superiors Of course open to pr McGiynn d, 10
appeal from tho ruling Of the Archbishop 10 tneir
common SUPERIOR the Pope and Inc hcnoisnoR ~o w
have responded before the higher tribunal: But VI;
McUIynn nado no such appeal lilo simply REFUSED
be will continue to teach as long as he lives the
iessSn h and Ids that. If he had the
mower he would coniscate all land, "wthOue any
satin IN IL mi
Many persons seem 70 have lost sight OF THIS
Fundamental issue In their personal regaru lor w
McGiynn and thcir admiration for his eloquence ana
his good works. But tho issue remains fundamental
nevertheless: Shall n priest OF the tatnoic CnMIn
be permitted publicly to teach that private ownership
priests who in this controversy have publicly sympa
thized With Dr. McGlynn have ont their influence,
however little they may have INTENDED IT, 10 tn9
theory that private property In land y ROBBERY anu
that the Archbishop Is wrong in lorbddlng pr NC
C;Iynn so 10 teach. / am sure however. that my
valued friend tho Rev. DR. Burtsell for instance,
did not intend TO bring In question the validity OF tne
title OF tho people of hs parish to the Church OF INC
under his efficient administration they have oousnt
and raid for Yet Is not this what his pupnc PRES
enco at DR. McGlynn's recent lecture praoticaiiy a
The evil Of this revolt against lawful authority
Giynn and his reinstatement at St. stephens while
no pursues his present course seems 70 me rs ini,
possible as would have boon the relnst anent OF a
Rebel officer to his command In the UNION "a ar, ats
whole community. Protestant "a well as SathonS,
owes thanks TO Archbishop Corrisan ana 10 MS Vgt
liant and able VicarGencral Monsignor PRESTON ,or
tho wise Grnness with which they have met Or NC
Glynn's subtle attack on one OF the iouhaatOn s,ooS
Of civilized society. lHosAs - SoiNLLi,
You Eeps April 10, 1887